Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

rtoz writes "Sweden is taking steps to close many prisons due to lack of prisoners. This year alone, four prisons and a detention center got closed in Sweden. The percentage of the population in Sweden prison is significantly lower than in most other countries. ... Though the Swedish Government is taking steps to close the prisons, the crime rate in Sweden has increased slightly. It seems they are planning to take steps for preventing crime rather than focusing on jailing people involved in criminal activities."

Sad thing is the whole 'treatment over punishment' thing was originally an American system that other countries copied because it was working fairly well, but then the US abandoned it favor of righteous suffering.

Well, it never really worked in the U.S. You can read about the various attempts at prison reform in the U.S. over the centuries here [wikipedia.org].

Basically, from the late 1700s through at least much of the 1800s, the U.S. had a number of trends in prison structure and style that were intended to "reform" or "rehabilitate" inmates, rather than just to punish them. We can see this in the names of institutions and departments that predate the modern trend toward euphemisms: "reformatory" (where you were "reformed), "penitentiary" (where you learn penitence and experience personal guilt for what you did), "Department of Corrections" or "correctional facilities" (where your deviant behavior or defects are corrected), etc.

Basically, all of this was a reaction to the idea of public punishments -- often fairly horrific -- that tended to be the norm in the 1700s and earlier.

However, all of the attempts at prison reform tended to go in other extremes, which often weren't effective either -- and sometimes made inmates worse. For example, the early "penitentiary" system in U.S. was based on the idea that prisoners would live in complete isolation, only interacting with guards when masked. Guards would never talk to them, and even in some cases would wear cloth on their shoes so prisoners would never even be aware of their presence. The idea was supposedly that the prisoner in complete isolation would be forced to contemplate his crimes (without any other contact with anything else), and thereby gradually realize the error of his ways.

Of course, putting human beings in complete isolation for years often tends to drive them to forms of insanity. So, this system often failed.

There was a parade of other types of reforms, all generally well-meaning, and attempting to put an end to corporal punishment. But the reality was that they often made prisoners suffer severe psychological damage in other ways, and in many cases the guards would still beat and abused them anyway....

Eventually, you also had the segregation of "insane" criminals from the rest, which led to further attempts at "curing" those who had "mental defects," in extreme cases resulting in surgeries and other craziness.

So, I'm not really sure about what the GP is talking about, except that there was a general trend toward (supposedly) non-violent punishment beginning soon after the American Revolution in the U.S. And a lot of reformers wanted to find ways to "fix" prisoners, rather than just punishing them.

In practice, I'm not sure any of those systems ever really worked well. But the ideas were influential in other countries.

The problem of the US prisons is pretty well exactly that of England before the American Revolution - private prisons that make a profit out of a government that they ask, with inducements, to send a lot of people their way for minor crimes. The only real difference is the US taxpayer is supplying the profits instead of the prisoners paying a lot of it.

The problem of the US prisons is pretty well exactly that of England before the American Revolution - private prisons that make a profit out of a government that they ask, with inducements, to send a lot of people their way for minor crimes. The only real difference is the US taxpayer is supplying the profits instead of the prisoners paying a lot of it.

This is a problem, but the bigger problem is that the US system is focused on punishment rather than rehabilitation. Rather than trying to bring these people back into society and make them productive and upstanding citizens, we push them to the margins. We make finding a job after prison exceedingly difficult and only the most menial and low-class jobs will accept former criminals. We strip citizens of the right to vote, which devalues them. We have very lengthy sentences (To punish those evildoers!) for fairly harmless crimes, which is devastating to families and pushes people into poverty needlessly. Depending on the crime, we put them on lists and track them for life which makes their post-prison lives difficult.

Sweden, on the other hand, focuses on bringing people who have strayed from the path back into society. Their methods work. However, if anyone in the US wants to employ their methods, they are seen as "soft on crime" at worst. At best, they can't get the funding needed to enact meaningful rehabilitation programs. It is far cheaper (in the short term) and easier to put people in cages compared to education and rehabilitation.

No, you are not. That myth exists mostly on TV and internet forums. In the real world rape trials are notoriously difficult to prosecute with an extremely high chance of failure... in no small part due to these myths and juries believing them.

Isn't it more likely prosecution is difficult because there is frequently no evidence and no eyewitnesses, just one persons word against another? In those circumstances it *should* be hard to get a conviction.

Just think of how many jobs will be lost by the closing of these prisons! Surely there must be something we can do to prevent this calamity from continuing. Maybe the government should subsidize crime to encourage more criminals so that these jobs are safe. Or make a bunch of things illegal that aren't, currently, to increase the incarceration rate. Cause more jobs = better economy as we all know.

Drug use is not the problem, nor is it something that needs to be prevented. In fact, you get rid of the bullshit, it practically prevents itself.

The vast majority of all drug use is not harmful to society. Let's face some facts here. Alcohol is far more dangerous to health and safety than most drugs have ever been combined. Let's also be realistic and set aside marijuana into another category; Use and Distribution. Only its distribution is associated with crimes beyond the act of distribution itself. Crimes associated with use are less prevalent and damaging than crimes associated with alcohol. IIRC, several campuses have outright admitted they wished there was more weed usage than alcohol usage for that same reason.

An artificial economy created by prohibition is responsible for the crimes. If an addict could get meth/heroin/coke cheaply at a pharmacy along with the opportunity for help that would eliminate most of the problems.

But the one drug that is no longer prohibited is now the worst offender of all? Me thinks you need to rethink that argument.

It still makes sense if you look at it in the context of that as bad as alcohol is now, as bad as it was before prohibition, the net effects of it's prohibition on society was worse. Alcohol poisonings went up. Hell, our own government caused a number of deaths by deliberately poisoning alcohol in a weird "Drinking is bad! Let's make it worse! by deliberately poisoning it and maybe people will stop!" line of thinking. You vastly empowered organized crime(the 'mobs' of the day, 'gangs' today), got violence on the street, incredible incentives for police to become corrupt, the shift from 'officer of the peace' to 'law enforcement', etc...

My support for legalizing drugs is pure harm mitigation, not harm prevention. Because prevention isn't working even at huge expense.

He's clearly referring to heavy drugs. Meth addicts will do stupid things for their next fix.

That's the whole point. If the "stupid" thing a meth addict has to do is panhandle for 20 minutes, walk to Walgreens, by a little baggie and kit, that's far less damaging to society.

All of those "stupid" things are completely eliminated when you get rid of drug prohibition.

Do you need to stupid things, pay exorbitant amounts of money, enable organized crime, slink in the shadows, etc. to get some fucking beer? Or do you go down to the liquor store, slap down a few bucks, and get fucked up in your own home peaceably?

Sorry to double post here, but if meth was available at a pharmacy, maybe the worst stupid thing to happen would be a meth addict shoplifting some drugs. By shoplifting I mean grabbing it from the pharmacist when they open the cupboard that has it stocked. Same way spray paint is protected these days (and that is truly stupid).

If it was legal and cheap, than there would be no place for a "criminal" to go and get it outside of legal means. Jay and Silent Bob would not make a living on the corner handing shit

Perhaps the difference is that Europeans do not go overboard, in every aspect. In general we do not have a lot of drug addicts and we surely do not throw them in jail after their 3rd strike. We also try to help them out as far as we can with treatments and support so they generally do not have to fall back to crime to 'just get by'.You can go to a doctors and they will make sure you get the treatment you need.

Reminds me of the 'If Breaking Bad happened in Canada' pic. Which is not to say we don't have problems, we just try to make sure our jails are full of murderers and thugs and the like, not some poor kid that had a tough break.And mind you, we also treat our prisoners differently and hold then in a different environment.

I think that fixing the crime and prison problem in the US and many other countries is not just a question of laws and regulations, but about changing your society as a whole.

A good proportion of the danger is caused by those drugs being illegal...When you buy alcohol from a legitimate source, you know that there are laws regulating what can be sold... When you buy illegal drugs from a guy on the street you have no idea how they were produced, or what other chemicals are mixed in with them.

The same thing happens with counterfeit alcohol, you get various industrial alcohols which are intended for industrial use and not human consumption, as well as other noxious chemicals mixed in, and these illegally produced alcohols are often far more dangerous than the regulated shop bought stuff.

If other drugs were legal, there would be legal sources where the ingredients are known and regulated so they would be safer for the users. You'd completely gut the illegal drugs market as there would be significantly less demand and far less profit. The stigma of drug use would be gone, so users would be more likely to seek help, police resources could be diverted to other things, drug prices would be lower so addicts would be less desperate (less likely to commit other crimes and more likely to get help) and there would be tax revenue coming in from the sale of drugs.

Crime rates would be down, not only because drug possession would no longer be illegal but also the crimes *caused* by drugs such as people stealing to fund their habit, and violence between drug dealers.

The only people who wouldn't benefit from such a setup are those who currently profit from selling drugs on the black market.

Actually it is because of free childcare. When even the poorest people can get access to high quality care for their children, giving them time to work while not letting their children be neglected or miss out on those crucial early years development, it tends to improve their children's life chances greatly. That in turn reduces the chance that those children will turn to crime as an alternative to a law abiding life, because they feel they have some change to make something of themselves and were not abandoned by society.

I'm not sure why there is this weird myth in the US about Sweden being "socialist". We've had a right wing government for the past 8 years. There has also been in the past two decades a sharp turn towards libertarian ideology in Sweden (our right is not socially conservative) and this is also true for the social democrats who have very little of socialism left in them.

Health care isn't free, nor are child care and social services. They are in some cases heavily subsidized, but definitely not free. It is accessible to everyone and it works very well for most people and their needs. It sort of sucks for more advanced medicine: If you are going to have a child for instance, it's superb while if you have say lung cancer, your chances are much better if you have the operation in the US.

The rather dysfunctional medical care system in the US is not a socialist/capitalist thing - it's just a system that doesn't work very well for a lot of people. The insurance model of financing healthcare is for instance very questionable etc.

As for other stuff such as taxes, I could mention stuff like that Sweden has no inheritance taxes, no real estate taxes or that the financial system is orders of magnitude less regulated than the US one etc Sweden is also somewhat of a corporate tax haven - with the right corporate structure you can get away with paying very little taxes. The bottom line is that from a Swedish perspective at least in in some respects the US is far more socialist than Sweden.

Ideologically you could say that the typical Swede is a pragmatic individualist who thinks that the role of the state is to protect, liberate and enable the individual. Unlike a 'pure' socialist system the role of the state is limited to problems it actually can solve. Unlike a 'pure' capitalist system the state has an enabling role as well (positive freedoms) rather than just a protective role (negative freedoms). If you things those concepts are muddled, you are quite right. Hence the pragmatism. And it sort of works. It's far from perfect. It's very disappointing to those that wish to classify it ideologically. There are many small issues and some huge ones (integration into society of immigrants is one example) but on the whole it is a decent society - and much better off than 30 years ago when it was much easier to classify ideologically.

The Swedes who loudly "defend" their "native cultures" in most cases ARE fascist, nationalist bigots. The ones who are more moderate about their criticisms join the third largest party instead (SD).

Men are treated like shit in any proceeding about women huh? So all those rape cases where everyone was furious about the man getting away because of this thing called "rÃttssÃkerhet" (proving beyond reasonable doubt, etc) suddenly doesn't exist.

I love how any criticism about Sweden can come in two polarly opposite forms, depending on your own worldview.

Immigration problem? Sweden either has a "huge immigration problem" if you dislike immigrants in your own country, or is "racially homogenous", if you can use that "fact" to show that any social measure such as universal health care just wouldn't work in your country.

Tax rate? It's enormous, if you're on the right, or has sunk way too low if you're on the left.

Remember when American schoolchildren were taught that communism was evil (and by extension, socialism was suspect) because the Soviet Union, had more prisoners per capita than the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave?

All those precious moments of a Cold War youth, and all I have to show for them is that I saw them go down the memory hole.

This is the sort of thing you see in countries deeply afflicted with the European-socialist culture of dependency and waste. First, the state wastefully builds a bunch of white-elephant infrastructure projects, rather than embarking on an Efficient private contract; because it's somebody else's money they are spending.

Then, when those projects stand empty, the state just expects somebody to give them customers (we worked so hard, don't we deserve to succeed?) and then throws up its hands in limp-wristed failure and admits defeat, rather than going out there and making customers through good, old-fashioned, hard work and brutal overcriminalization of all sorts of petty offenses.

This, my friends, is what a sick society looks like. I bet they try to hide their shame by cooking up a bunch of fancy statistics about how good their human development index rankings, life expectancy, and similar ivory-tower nonsense are; but you can't hide moral sickness this profound.

You're totally right, I haven't seen them. I'm talking out my ass. Let me look at them. Thank god we have Wikipedia for these things.

Sweden: -17.632
United States: 87.859

Wow. Yup, just like you said. Theirs is negative and the US's is so much higher. What was I thinking? Hey, I gotta read up more about this Debt to GDP thingy so I stop making an ass of myself and be smart too. Good thing I still have wikipedia open:

A low debt-to-GDP ratio indicates an economy that produces and sells goods and services sufficient to pay back debts without incurring further debt. Governments aim for low debt-to-GDP ratios, but geopolitical and economic considerations - including interest rates, war, recessions, and other variables - influence the borrowing practices of a nation and the choice to incur further debt.

There are countries far more socialist than Sweden that have a prison and murder rate per capita far higher than the US.

Well, no. No, there isn't. Because the US is in fact the world leader in per capita incarceration rate. The US is, in this metric, really number one.

Murder is another story. If you compare the US though with its economic peers, you have to go a long way down the per-capita GDP axis [diegobasch.com] before you find another country with a higher per-capita homicide rate.

The tax-pressure is just above 50% (but it's the company that pays 20% of that so you only see ~30-32% yourself).. But for those extra 20% (over the taxes in the US for example) we get free healthcare and even paid sick-leave by the goverment if you catch something that takes a long time to get rid of and then we have really generous social security..

On top of this we also have things like tax-reduction when buying some services like someone to clean your home (to make people hire people that pay taxes) and when doing renovation of your home you can deduct money for the workers that do it, but not the material..The deductions are up to 50000SEK each and that will lower your tax.. (ie 50000*0.3 == reduced tax for most people)..

Sure we have a incremental taxes also so if you earn more than a specific amount ( do the research yourself ) you get to pay higher taxes on the amount above that..

The average pay in Sweden is ~28000SEK (number from 2012) and you get to keep ~70% of that...

Then we have the healthcare.. It has NOT gone up due to privitization... The private companies compete with public companies for the same amount of money for the same amount of services... Ie all they do is optimize the routines to be able to make a bit of profit but this also results in that they will lower their offer next year to try and get the deal making public hospitals work harder to stay in business.. Just go do your homework.. There are tons of information on the subject if you manage to actually do a search on the subject.

Don't mess with the equilibrium. Less criminals means less need for cops means more unemplyed cops who usually go into organized crime means more criminals means you need to hire more cops means less crime means... - OMG, it's just a way to get the whole population into organized crime!

Swedish prisoners have a better life in general than people in the USA in a minimum wage job. They get better housing, food and work hours, plus they get education, health care and all, so they have a chance to stay out of prison once their punishment is over. Bonus: they get to keep their voting rights after they are out, so they are still part of the democratic process that is the base of the laws that put them in prison in the first place.

Maybe it's time the USA starts looking at how Sweden gets this accomplished and use that as an inspiration to improve. If even the prisoners there have it better than over a quarter of the free people in the USA, you'd say there should be improvements to be found.

Your observation is that people have always been calling politicians fuckwits, and your conclusion is that people have always been wrong.

I suggest that people have always been right.

It's in the nature of the position: if one must want power to gain power, then only those who want power will be in power. Apart from the very rare altruist - Aneurin Bevan was probably one of the last such politicians in the UK - it is a case of give me sortition or give me fuckwits.

There's a very good reason for that.People who put themselves forward and offer services as a politician should be the last choice to fill that position.People of sound mind, kind heart and good will should be extorted into fulfilling that duty, if we are ever to be a success.

California has a problem with overcrowded prisons. Sweden has a problem with prisons being unoccupied.

I sense an opportunity for a good capitalist.

No, keep your filth right where it is.What the US should be doing is disarming its law ENFORCEMENT agency and let it become again a police force.What the US should be doing is let less and less people go to prison. And those that go, shoudl go to be rehabilitated into civil society. In other words the US should be inspired by european moral values and not the shitty "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" bullshit ideology that underlies its entire judicial system. Designed only to put people into prison for minor deeds.

there is a difference between a police officer with a ford sedan, a pistol or 2 with a couple of extra clips, taser, baton, pepper spray and bullet-proof vest, and a police officer with an armoured personnel carrier, machine gun, hand grenades and storm trooper outfit

However, in Norway the population is, by and large, loyal to the government, believe it or not. In fact, that is how it is in most of Europe, AFAIK. Even if we don't agree with the government's policies, we still trust and respect them.

I remember a story from when I went to school in Denmark (too many years ago): The Czar of Russia came on a state visit to Denmark, and was shown some of the sights in Copenhagen, modest as they are. Among other things, they climbed up a famous church tower, "The Round Tower"; and the Czar, whose czarina was a Danish princess, wanted to impress his in-law with his immense power, so he called over one of his young officers and told him to throw himself from the tower. The officer dared not disobey, said his last prayers and started to climb over the railings - but the king stopped him and has the czar what this was about. The czar ansewred: "See, this is how powerful I am. Nobody can resist me". And the king looked at him and said - "My power if different - I can go out to even the poorest farm in my country, unarmed and alone, and ask for shelter; and the farmer will guard me with his life."

However, in Norway the population is, by and large, loyal to the government, believe it or not. In fact, that is how it is in most of Europe, AFAIK

Where is the BULLSHIT mod option when you need it!?

While this MAY be true for Norway it is certainly not true for most of Europe.Voter participation is on an all time low, demonstrations against the "ruling class" aka politicians get more violent, corruption is everywhere and people know it.

The only reason that most appear complicit is because overall people are still living comfortably over here.

However, in Norway the population is, by and large, loyal to the government, believe it or not. In fact, that is how it is in most of Europe, AFAIK. Even if we don't agree with the government's policies, we still trust and respect them.

That's because your government actually represents you reasonably well. And that, in turn, is because you keep it in check.

Americans believe that any government is bad government, but that's because all they ever saw is bad government. They don't realize that a strong government can do a great many things for its citizens so long as the citizens keep it in check and make it focus its power towards their needs.

However, in Norway the population is, by and large, loyal to the government, believe it or not. In fact, that is how it is in most of Europe, AFAIK. Even if we don't agree with the government's policies, we still trust and respect them.

That's because your government actually represents you reasonably well. And that, in turn, is because you keep it in check.

Americans believe that any government is bad government, but that's because all they ever saw is bad government. They don't realize that a strong government can do a great many things for its citizens so long as the citizens keep it in check and make it focus its power towards their needs.

I don't think we have the same idea here. We don't keep our government "in check". Instead, we populate the government with people representative to some degree of the population at large. When the richest 1% are not the ruling class, you get wonderful benefits like a taxation of not only the poor, but also the rich. And that there provides a fantastic boost to the national economy.

In short, keeping your government "in check" is less important when the government already attempts to work for the nation at large rather than only for those that might fund the next election. Also, it builds one hell of a trusting relation which helps when you need to do unpleasant things like slash the retirement funds or raise the retirement age.

In fact, that is how it is in most of Europe, AFAIK. Even if we don't agree with the government'spolicies, we still trust and respect them.

That may be in the North. Here in the south (Spain) we have the opposite. Crowded jails, corrupt politicians and a public that doesn't trust its government at all. Not that we can get rid of them. They have us by the balls.

In Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature, he describes a study done on attitudes throughout USA. The study was in the form of a letter, written as if from a guy looking for a job, and the letter was sent to employers round the country. The letter made an admission, "I think you should know, I was involved in a murder, I was confronted by a guy in a bar and we had to take it outside, and he suddenly had a knife and I had to defend myself, and he died." Employers in the Northern states were not sympathetic to him. Employers in Southern states were sympathetic, and admitted that he was forced into it and had to defend his honour and even offered him friendly support would he ever be in town. Meanwhile a similar letter was used with a different admission, that the guy had been poor and so stole a car. Similar difference but in reverse. This time the Northern states were sympathetic to his situation, but Southern states thought it was no excuse. As it happens, separate stats show that the incidence of gun related murders is lowest in Northern states, and highest in Southern states. The inference? Gun crime is largely about cultural values to do with honour. You must guard yourself, your honour is to protect your relatives, your property, etc. Why? Well this is the interesting thing. If you don't trust the government to protect you, because say, you are herding goats in a desert area far from authorities, then the code of honour dominates. So perhaps, USA has higher gun crime because it is enshrined in the constitution that you shouldn't trust the government anyway.

Take that compulsory health care thing. When we heard the US is going to get something like that, a good deal of us pretty much thought something along the lines of "finally, it's been about time their politicians came to their senses and did something for the... wait, what? They do NOT want that?"

Quite frankly, we were incredibly surprised that there could possibly be any kind of resistance to that. I mean, sure, I'll probably spend more on my health care "tax" than I'll ever "get out" of it (at least I sure hope so!), but there are so many who are unfortunate enough to get more out of the deal than they could possibly afford. Worse, no private company would give them insurance and they'd probably die.

Take that compulsory health care thing. When we heard the US is going to get something like that, a good deal of us pretty much thought something along the lines of "finally, it's been about time their politicians came to their senses and did something for the... wait, what? They do NOT want that?"

I was watching Real Time with Bill Maher last weekend, he had (almost Mayor) Weiner on there, and while the guy may not be socially savvy, he at least has a pretty good political mind. My favorite quote was during the debate on Obamacare where the Republican Rep (name doesn't matter, they're all Republemmings these days and few think for themselves) was reciting his parties lines, and Weiner quipped "It was a Republican idea, the Democrats just implemented it. Why do you have so much hate for your own good ideas?" There was also a comment in there about the way the parties respond to things, Republicans have this trend of shutting down and fighting every action done by the Democrats (i.e. Obamacare, or any of Obama's policies for that matter), while Democrats may not agree with a Republican (i.e. Bush), they don't do the same level of shutdown and public outcry. Neither party is perfect, they all act like spoiled children who want to be the one to create that crayon picture that mom (history) puts up on the fridge for all to see.

It is an interesting view on our society though. We want everything for nothing, we elect people who claim they are for the people but often are anything but (e.g. furlough, twice this year alone), and capitalism, capitalism, capitalism. The intent for our government was by the people, for the people, and Senate recess was supposed to be so the Senators could go home and tend their crops, to see how the people they are representing are doing. Instead we get this popularity contest of rich people who know how to say what people want to hear, and are so disconnected from the reality of the poor that when something comes along whose intent is to help everyone, there is so much bickering and mud throwing that the people lose.

I think an important point being overlooked in this discussion is an analysis of the conditions that drove the inmates to crime in the first place. How many crimes are committed by someone trying to callously shortcut the rules of society vs. someone down on their luck or just trying to survive? Perhaps there's nothing particularly special about the rehabilitation methods performed by the prisons, but instead, Sweden's done a top job of addressing the underlying issues.

Also - and I have to bring it up - stupid-ass drug laws. If we can't legalize the mostly harmless recreational drugs out there, can we PLEASE stop locking people up for minor drug offenses, and instead fine them, like traffic violations (which are actually, you know, dangerous) and other civil infractions? Fines would actually help regulate the 'problem' while RAISING MONEY instead of needlessly locking up harmless people (destroying their lives in the process) which then becomes a gigantic drain on society due to the fact that we've now made them effectively wards of the state. It's fucking idiotic, man. Catch a guy smoking a joint? Slap him with a $150 ticket. No criminal record established, just show up and pay your fine and everything is golden. Don't slam his face into the pavement and seize his house and pull his children into state custody and ruin his reputation for the rest of his life, ensuring that when he finally gets out of prison, he'll turn to crime, because you've eliminated any and all chances that he'll magically fall into being a useful member of society after you've branded him for life. Nobody wants to hire the guy that just spent months in lockup on drug charges. The system we have here now does not 'rehabilitate' anyone. It brands them with a criminal record that they can never live down, often for minor charges. OF COURSE they turn to crime - even if what they were doing was harmless and not immoral in any way. They were convicted and served sentences and were told by everyone that they were a criminal and did criminal things. Why wouldn't they turn to crime when released? Everyone thinks they're a criminal anyway.

Sweden does have a zero tolerance approach to drugs but it is much more than that, basic possession can get you a fine or imprisonment up to 6 months but the 6 months is a requirement for police to perform a body search. So in reality you'd probably get a fine. If children are involved well that raises the seriousness and is more likely to get you prison time. There are comprehensive residential drug treatment programs available and free too those who need them.

There is a bug difference in prison population between the USA who jails 750 out of 100,000 and sweden who jails just 84 around 23% of prison inmates are there for drugs offences but the average number of people locked up in sweden is around 4,100 total.figures here are pulled fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Sweden [wikipedia.org]

Sweden isn't soft on drugs by any stretch but you are more likely to be treated rather than imprisoned. Sweden seems to be focussed on making its entire society productive and happy. Totally different from the American aim which seems to be look out for yourself and be sure not to stumble or your screwed. Trouble is just being honest isn't enough, you have to be healthy and lucky too. I say lucky because even having great genes doesn't stop you getting hit by a bus and crippled.

Sad thing is although there may be millions of Americans who can see how much their society fails them. The barriers to change seem pretty much impossible to overcome. The system fails Americans rich and poor. Even if your doing ok, whats to stop some crack head breaking in to your home? Ok you might kill him, but you are just as much let down as the crack head who tried to rob you.

Pretty much this. Someone caught for minor drug offenses will be sent to rehab, not to jail in Sweden.

That is however not the entire story. A recent study in Sweden made in Swedish prisons found that the prisoners were highly overrepresented when it came to suffering from ADHD. (63% compared to around 5% for the rest of the population.)What this means is that even the really violent criminals that people generally think deserves to be in jail can be treated.I think the study was extended to all Swedish jails earlier this year or something.The early tests showed that by just giving a correct diagnosis and give the prisoner the option (It is a completely voluntary system.) to take medication for ADHD the previously violent criminal will magically transform into a contributing member of society instead of becoming a repeat offender.

That's why a lot of countries now move away from fixed fines to "daily rates". I.e. you pay depending on your income, and that fine is then 10, 30, 60, 90... days of your income. I.e. 30 days = 1 month's pay.

If you don't want to tell the court how much you make, that's fine. They'll simply estimate. Guess on what side they usually err if you let them guess.

Sweden hasn't been genetically and socially homogenous in a long time. They have Sami minority in the north, Finnish, Danish and Norwegian across the country and they have been taking refugees to the point where they now have about 10% of nation formed from first and second generation migrants from various conflicts across the globe.

Yes, we should start jailing therapists. Their extortionate "professional rates" suck the lifeblood out of the economy. People would be better off spending this money on hookers and gigolos who give guaranteed relief. Oh wait, not "therapists" but "the rapists". Well, if people were more inclined to hire hookers, that problem could be solved, too!

I am not saying our extremely high incarceration rate is the primary cause for the reduction in crime. But in spite of what is commonly reported about America, crime is actually improving. I would expect if we did a similar reduction in sentences for drug offenders, and have some better support for those getting out of jail we would have gotten a bigger reduction probably at a lower cost, but being "soft on crime" does not help anyone win elections